INTRODUCTION TO IN FLACCUM
The story told in this treatise is as follows.
Flaccus, whose misgovernment and cruelty to the Jews and ultimate fate are here described, was appointed prefect of Alexandria and Egypt in or about A.D. 32 near the end of the principate of Tiberius. Philo tells us that he showed considerable ability and industry during his first five years of office. He remarks that he praises him to exhibit his villainy in a clearer light, and he might have added that his description goes to prove that his toleration of the abominable cruelty shown to the Jews by the Alexandrian populace was not due to weakness but to definite intention (1–7). He had stood well with Tiberius, but the accession of Gaius in 37 endangered his position, for he had been a partisan of Tiberius Gemellus, the rival candidate for the succession, had been concerned in the steps taken to prosecute Agrippina, Gaius’s mother, and was friendly with Macro, who, though he had done much to protect Gaius from the distrust and dislike of Tiberius, soon fell into disfavour with Gaius and was put to death (8–15). This last event reduced Flaccus to despair, and it was at this point that according to Philo the anti-Semitic party in Alexandria, though they included some who at bottom were his enemies, approached him and suggested that if he would give them his support they and the city as a whole would stand by him to protect him against the hostility of the Emperor (16–24). All this may be partially or even wholly true, but it is compatible with the view held by some, who have more right to pronounce an opinion than I, that behind it lies a movement on the part of the Jews to enlarge to full citizenship the special privileges which they had as a πολίτευμα, and that it was this which roused the Greeks to take action and enlist Flaccus’s support.
Philo represents Flaccus as only gradually throwing his lot in with them and exhibiting his hostility to the Jews (24). The climax came when Herod Agrippa, recently appointed by Gaius to the kingship of his uncle Philip’s tetrarchy, visited Alexandria on his way to his kingdom, and the Alexandrians deeply resenting this exaltation of a Jew and (though Philo does not tell us this) further exasperated by the enthusiasm with which the Jews welcomed their compatriot, staged an insulting mockery by bringing the lunatic Carabas into the Gymnasium and greeting him with royal honours. Philo does not accuse Flaccus of taking an active part in this, and, indeed, admits that in public he behaved to Agrippa with courtesy and friendliness, but charges him with abetting it in as much as he took no steps to suppress the demonstration or punish the offenders (25–40).
The Alexandrians, presumably aware that they might compromise themselves by insulting Gaius’s favourite, then proceeded to a step which would naturally be gratifying to the Emperor. They desecrated the synagogues by setting up images of Gaius in them. We are told very little about this in this treatise. Philo enlarges upon the consequences it entailed, on the danger of such a movement extending beyond Alexandria, and on its futility because the desecrated synagogues would cease to exist as synagogues and the Jews would be unable to pay the homage which they were accustomed to pay by dedicating them in honour of the Emperor or installing such emblems as had been lawfully installed in them in the past (41–52). He passes on to a second wrong, a certain proclamation issued by Flaccus. This which is vaguely described as denouncing the Jews as foreigners and aliens may be fairly connected with the eviction from four of the five “letters” or quarters of the city which is mentioned in the same section (53–54). Then comes a third wrong. He permitted the mob not merely to evict the householders but to plunder their houses, and one consequence of the evictions was that the Jews were unable to carry on their businesses. In fact, a regular pogrom ensued and its brutalities are described in lurid terms. The items selected are somewhat different from those of the Legatio but the story is substantially the same (54–72). One point on which Philo dwells with considerable length is the treatment of the Jewish senators. Apparently these as a body were accused of some offences and, though only about half of the members were arrested, they were cruelly flogged. In particular some of them had lost all their property in the sack, and though Flaccus had already been informed of this they were scourged none the less (73–77). A further indignity was the instruments used. Alexandrian citizens were scourged with blades, and hitherto Alexandrian Jews had had the same privilege, but on this occasion there were substituted the scourges used on the Egyptians (78–80). Further, apparently all this took place on or about the Emperor’s birthday, which was usually considered an occasion for mercy, but on this occasion brutal treatment of Jews was actually made part of the birthday celebrations (81–85).
The next outrage seems far less serious. The Jews or some of them were accused of having stocks of arms. Their houses were searched and according to Philo none were found, in marked contrast to the huge number taken when a similar investigation had been held of the Egyptians. His indignation seems overdone, and, indeed, the only specific complaint he makes is that the modesty of the women was offended by a military investigation of their intimate belongings, and in connexion with this he mentions other ill-treatment which the women had received in the pogrom (86–96).
The last item in the list of Flaccus’s crimes is that he suppressed the resolution of congratulation which the Jewish senate had passed at Gaius’s accession and which he had promised to transmit to the Emperor. The Jews suspecting that he had not sent it on had consulted Agrippa when he visited Alexandria and received from him an undertaking which they believed that he had carried out (97–103).
So much for Flaccus’s offences. We pass on to his punishment. The story of his arrest with a detailed account of the circumstances and of the exultation felt by the Jews, is related with all the vividness of which Philo is a master. We note that this occurred during the Feast of Tabernacles, not much more than a month after the birthday of the emperor and that his journey to Rome, during which he suffered from stormy weather, was at the beginning of winter (104–125). We do not know exactly what he was charged with, but are told that Isidorus and Lampo, who were mentioned earlier as leaders of the faction which urged him to secure his position by persecuting the Jews, now appeared as his accusers (126–127). And here Philo interrupts his narrative to tell us something about these two. His tirade against Lampo amounts to a charge that as secretary to the prefect acting as judge he persistently perverted justice, though we also incidentally learn that he had been for a time in serious trouble under Tiberius (128–134). As to Isidorus, we have a lengthy account of an incident belonging to the early days of Flaccus’s prefectship. Flaccus had originally shown him considerable favour. When he became less cordial Isidorus took umbrage and organized a gathering of his touts, who brought baseless slanders against Flaccus here represented as behaving with moderation and good sense. A meeting to which the respectable part of the people were summoned brought the whole city together full of indignation against the slanderers and sympathy with the governor. Isidorus was completely exposed and had to flee from the city (135–145). He must have reappeared and, surprising as it seems, must, if Philo’s account is true, have persuaded Flaccus that he was a friend on whose advice he could rely. What charges he and Lampo brought against Flaccus we are not told, but a trial was held in which Flaccus was condemned, his property confiscated and himself sentenced to deportation (146–150).
From this point the story proceeds straightforwardly to the end. We are given an account of his journey to Andros and his miserable plight after his arrival, interspersed with speeches and soliloquies in which he laments his fall and acknowledges that his punishment is just. Whether this last represents his feeling may be doubted. We have not and probably Philo had not any means of judging. The end came when Gaius, who is said to have come to the conclusion that the life of the deported was too mild a punishment for him, determined to have him executed. The treatise closes with a description of the way in which this was carried out, followed by the assertion that the fate of Flaccus shows that God still watches over the Jews (151–191).
The Flaccus has considerable literary merits. The narrative, particularly in the last forty sections, is exceedingly vivid. It is also, no doubt, historically valuable in so far as it gives a substantially true account of events of which we know very little from other sources. How far it is good history, in the sense of giving a reliable account of the motives and feelings of the actors in the story, I leave to those more competent than myself to assess. Also it is a powerful embodiment of that profound conviction that the nation is under the special Providence of God which has been the life and soul of Judaism throughout the centuries. This conviction naturally entails a belief that the enemies of Judaism are the enemies of God and their punishment a divine visitation. But this belief has its evil side, which seems to me to be very strongly exhibited in this treatise. In § 117 the Jews are represented as saying “We do not rejoice at the punishment of an enemy because we have been taught by the Holy Laws to have human sympathy.” This is easily said but not so easily done, and if Philo believed that he himself had learnt this lesson I think he deceived himself. He gloats over the misery of Flaccus in his fall, exile, and death, with a vindictiveness which I feel to be repulsive. While, as I have said in the preface, none of the treatises in this volume have any great value nor would probably have survived but for the high esteem given to his main work, this is the only one which those who admire the beauty and spirituality so often shown both in the Commentary and Exposition might well wish to have been left unwritten.